Do people need temporal parts to have persistence of self

[levi]

Also what is mereological nihilism?

[Little 10 Toes]

Please give examples of "temporal parts". Also, Google is your friend.

How about you tell us what you think mereological nihilism is first.

[Wowbagger]

I don't know what you mean by "temporal parts". But, so far it looks like all you need is a somewhat persistent state within a network or two of neurons, to have a persistent self, or at least a self that feels persistent.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

my parts are here all the time, although sometimes my leg goes to sleep...

[arthwollipot]

I looked up mereology on Wikipedia, but it lost me after about the third word.

I'd say that whatever it is, mereological nihilism is the lack of it.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

Sure. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism to answer the second.

[levi]

I have another question do four dimensional objects exist? That is what a temporal part is. You can look it up in the stanford encylopedia of philosophy. I will give an example. A timeline of your life.

[Dave Rogers]

Since I view myself as an emergent behaviour of a complex assembly of particles, I suppose that makes me a mereological nihilist. I don't find it particularly helps with the washing-up.

The best evidence I can think of for the usefulness of the concept of four-dimensional objects is the Feynman diagram, which gives valuable insights into reality by treating particles as inherently four-dimensional.

As for whether people need temporal parts to have persistence of self, it seems to me to be tautological; persistence is by definition a temporal property.

Dave

[Rairun]

Anyone who claims to hold a naturalist world view should agree with mereological nihilism. There's no chairness to a chair, no personhood (ie, spirit, soul, etc.) to a person - there are only atoms (or smaller particles) arranged in a specific way. When you build a house, it becomes a separate object to you for practical purposes, but it doesn't gain any sort of essence apart from the individual bricks.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

my parts are here all the time, although sometimes my leg goes to sleep...

All my parts are here, some of them in working order.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

It's hogwash.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

Actually, having thought about it, it's simply a succession of letters. For it to be a thing in its own right would contradict mereological nihilism.

Dave

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Actually, having thought about it, it's simply a succession of letters. For it to be a thing in its own right would contradict mereological nihilism.

Dave

Winter in some parts of the world is meteorological nihilism.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Winter in some parts of the world is meteorological nihilism.

And for practical examples of meritological nihilism, visit the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Dave

[levi]

Is it true that anyone who believes in a naturalist should believe in mereological nihilism?

Since humans have emergent properties does "I", a self exist?

What are others opinion on temporal parts? An example of temporal parts is I exist today and am learning about this subject. Tommorow I will know more about the subject. Like I said before a timeline. Does mereological nihilism affect temporal parts? I assume not.

[Craig4]

I sense another unnecessary intrusion of philosophy. It's a dead art.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Is it true that anyone who believes in a naturalist should believe in mereological nihilism?

Since humans have emergent properties does "I", a self exist?

What are others opinion on temporal parts? An example of temporal parts is I exist today and am learning about this subject. Tommorow I will know more about the subject. Like I said before a timeline. Does mereological nihilism affect temporal parts? I assume not.

I go for the nihilistic mereology myself. And it's women who affect my temporal parts.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

People need temporal parts for a continuous existence, but not for a discrete existence.

If you use more than one word to explain mereological nihilism then the description will be incomplete.

[Loss Leader]

Why would it matter whether we exist in a fourth dimension so long as it seems to us that we do? The sense of self includes a sense of a past and future selves. How is it meaningful to ask if those past and future selves are real?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Why would it matter whether we exist in a fourth dimension so long as it seems to us that we do? The sense of self includes a sense of a past and future selves. How is it meaningful to ask if those past and future selves are real?

They are when it gets to be now.

[Bikewer]

What if we become capable of uploading our consciousness into a computer? Does a hard drive count as a temporal part?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Does a hard drive count as a temporal part?

It always comes down to sex.

[levi]

I have another question do mereological nihilist believe in a "self". I know that they don't believe in chair just in an arrangement of particles, but since the "self" is an emergent properties does that mean the "self" exists?

Depending on what theory of identity someone believes in than it is possible for a hardrive to be a temporal part.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

I know that they don't believe in chair just in an arrangement of particles

Then what do they sit on?

[levi]

You sit on an arrangement of particles that make up a chair but there is no essence of a chair just wood. Correct?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

You sit on an arrangement of particles that make up a chair but there is no essence of a chair just wood. Correct?

True. A chair has no essence except maybe essence of pine.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by levi

I have another question do mereological nihilist believe in a "self". I know that they don't believe in chair just in an arrangement of particles, but since the "self" is an emergent properties does that mean the "self" exists?

The fact that something has a name and a definition doesn't mean that the concept exists. All it means is that humans find it useful to pretend the concept exists. Chairs do not exist, just things that people like to think of as chairs.

Don't confuse the word for a thing with proof of the thing.

[levi]

Does a self exist from the brain because of emergent properties or just cells and no essence of "self"? I think a self exist because of the emergent properties. Correct?



And i heard one opinion that temporal parts exist but what do others believe?

I didn`t see the earlier post before I was posting

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by levi

You sit on an arrangement of particles that make up a chair but there is no essence of a chair just wood. Correct?

The application here would be?

[levi]

When you say application I assume you mean use. The use is because I want answers to my questions?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by levi

When you say application I assume you mean use. The use is because I want answers to my questions?

Which would help you understand the chair better how?

[levi]

The wood helps you understand the chair. I don't think anything else would because the particles that the wood is made up of don't have the same properties as the wood.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by levi

I have another question do mereological nihilist believe in a "self". I know that they don't believe in chair just in an arrangement of particles, but since the "self" is an emergent properties does that mean the "self" exists?

It doesn't exist as a discrete object any more than the chair exists as a discrete object. We find it useful to define a concept "chair" which describes, not just a class of arrangements of particles, but the intended use of that class of arrangements; in the same way, we find it useful to define a concept "self" which describes a specific set of emergent properties of a different arrangement of particles.

Dave

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Rairun

Anyone who claims to hold a naturalist world view should agree with mereological nihilism. There's no chairness to a chair, no personhood (ie, spirit, soul, etc.) to a person - there are only atoms (or smaller particles) arranged in a specific way. When you build a house, it becomes a separate object to you for practical purposes, but it doesn't gain any sort of essence apart from the individual bricks.

I hold a naturalist worldview, and I don't understand why the two categories of understanding the world are mutually exclusive. It seem perfectly reasonable to use more than one way of describing things.

[Kid Eager]

I would disagree.

There is a chairness to a chair if one were to regard it as their favorite chair, or the uncomfortable chair. There are perceived emergent properties of the assemblage, specific (but not unique) to that instance of assemblage.

The emergent properties are not absolutes, but rather are perceptual and often intanglible attributes arising from the combination of sensory inputs, memory, and belief.

Thank you, Tyrells 2008 Shiraz, for the enlightenment....

[Rairun]

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Shorts + t-shirt + sneakers = shorts + t-shirt + sneakers
Shoes + dress pants + shirt + tie + jacket = suit

Why? There's no suitness intrinsic to that combination of clothes. It's a suit only before we have a specific purpose for it. This emerging attribute isn't a thing that actually comes into existence when those clothes are assembled. The attribute is a product of our discrimination faculties, a way of making sense of the world.

[Wowbagger]

One of the best answers I have seen, so far, for where "self" comes from is a book called Self Comes to Mind by Antonio Damasio. In it, he describes an evolutionary pathway for neurons to map different types of "self" over time, layering on top of each other, until we gain the ability to sustain what he calls the "autobiographical self" we seem to be talking about.

Originally Posted by Craig4

I sense another unnecessary intrusion of philosophy. It's a dead art.

For answering questions, philosophy is a dead art.

For building a taxonomy of thought, it is in full swing!

Yeah, that's right! Philosophy is nothing much more than an exercise in categorizing thoughts, these days! Kinda pathetic when compared to the old days, when philosophy was held in high regard as a source of knowledge. But at least it is still somewhat useful, for something!

[levi]

Originally Posted by Rairun

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Shorts + t-shirt + sneakers = shorts + t-shirt + sneakers
Shoes + dress pants + shirt + tie + jacket = suit

Why? There's no suitness intrinsic to that combination of clothes. It's a suit only before we have a specific purpose for it. This emerging attribute isn't a thing that actually comes into existence when those clothes are assembled. The attribute is a product of our discrimination faculties, a way of making sense of the world.

Is rairun saying that a suit doesn't have essence? Or is rairun saying that it is just perceptive?

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I don't know what you mean by "temporal parts". But, so far it looks like all you need is a somewhat persistent state within a network or two of neurons, to have a persistent self, or at least a self that feels persistent.

So do we have persistence or is just an illusion? What are other perceptives on the question ? Is there not a right answer because science isn`t advanced enough yet ?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Is rairun saying that a suit doesn't have essence? Or is rairun saying that it is just perceptive?

He's saying that it is a suit.

Quote:

So do we have persistence or is just an illusion? What are other perceptives on the question ? Is there not a right answer because science isn`t advanced enough yet ?

Persistence of what? Vision? Gumption?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Please give examples of "temporal parts". Also, Google is your friend.

How about you tell us what you think mereological nihilism is first.

My fast assumpt, knowing english fairly well, is temporal parts are those attached at each step forward in time to that time (at any time they are in one place and at any other time they are at another place due to generally measurable time units and location units. With knowledge of a reasonable number of these time/location points a movement path may become recognizable and predictable to a greater or less degree ). Transtemporal parts would be those that, for whatever reason, could skip certain time intervals variably and whose motion through/over time would not be currently predictable either as to speed or trajectory. There are others, but one must forbear somewhere.

The last Mere O'logical nihilism I know of was the lost nothingness of the aforementioned Mere - a young Irish lass with nae fortune and nae prospects
and nae hope o' gettin' any.

And don't let me shelaleagh be speedin' yeh off yeh smairt arse dunderhead!!!